“Sharia Courts” Have No Recognition in Law: Supreme Court Restores Maintenance Denied on a Kazi-Court Compromise

The wife's second marriage to the respondent — both had been married before — broke down amid allegations of dowry demands and cruelty, and the couple's disputes passed through proceedings before a “Court of Kazi” and a “Darul Kaja”, producing a compromise and eventually a divorce deed. When the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court held the compromise against her — reasoning, in effect, that what was settled before the Kazi barred her statutory claim. The Allahabad High Court declined to interfere, and she reached the Supreme Court.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can declarations or compromises before a Kazi court, Darul Qaza or “Sharia Court” defeat statutory rights — here, a destitute wife's maintenance?

No Parallel Judicial System

Following the Constitution Bench-era ruling in Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India (2014), Justice Amanullah's judgment restates the position in unambiguous terms: adjudication is the State's function, performed by courts constituted under law. Bodies described as Sharia Courts or Courts of Kazi — whatever their community standing — have no recognition in law; their fatwas, declarations and decisions bind no one, are unenforceable by coercive measures, and acquire effect only when parties voluntarily act on them, and even then only so far as the law otherwise permits.

Maintenance Measured by Statute, Not Settlement

Applying that principle, the Court found the Family Court's reliance on the Kazi-court compromise misplaced: a Section 125 CrPC claim is a statutory, welfare-driven entitlement that such a compromise cannot bar. On the record — including the husband's means and the wife's circumstances — the Court directed maintenance of ₹4,000 per month, payable not from the judgment but from the date the maintenance petition was filed, with arrears accordingly.

What the Court Actually Held

• “Sharia Courts”, “Courts of Kazi” and like bodies have no recognition in law.
• Their directives bind no one and cannot be enforced coercively; they operate only between parties who voluntarily accept them, subject to law.
• A compromise before such a body cannot defeat a wife's Section 125 CrPC maintenance claim.
• Maintenance of ₹4,000 per month was directed from the date of the petition.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It renews Vishwa Lochan Madan for the trial courts that had begun treating community-forum outcomes as quasi-decrees.
• It protects the most common victim of parallel adjudication — the wife whose statutory maintenance is bargained away before a forum she could not refuse.
• It clarifies the narrow space such forums occupy: voluntary, non-binding, never enforceable.
• Family Courts are on notice that statutory rights are tested on statute, not on community settlements.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Wives and Maintenance Claimants

• A Kazi-court compromise, divorce deed or fatwa is not a defence your client must surmount; plead this judgment to keep the Section 125 inquiry on the statute's own terms.

For Family Courts and Opposing Counsel

• Treat community-forum documents as, at most, evidence of conduct — never as adjudications; building a defence on them now invites reversal.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

They are not prohibited as community institutions, but they are not courts: their directives have no legal force, bind no one, and cannot be enforced by coercion.

Parties may voluntarily act on such settlements, but only to the extent the general law permits — and no statutory right, like Section 125 maintenance, is barred by them.

From the date the maintenance petition was filed — the Court directed ₹4,000 per month with effect from that date.

Conclusion